What readers think of Eragon, plus links to write your own review.

Sure, Paolini's language is great, but his characters lack the emotional intensity that Tolkien's did. Paolini's storyline seems borrowed from other books, as do his characters and their backgrounds. Brom could easily be equated to Gandalf, while Eragon has strong ties with Anne McCaffrey's dragonriders. Shades are most likely borrowed from Warcraft. Urguks (or however you spell it) are too similar to Uruk-hai. He even went so far as to create an "elven language." His elves are just like Tolkien's, his dwarves just like Tolkien's, his dragons far to similar to McCaffrey's. I do commend him for trying, and have high hopes for him as a mature author when he outgrows this stage of multi-genre fanfiction.

First off, good job Chris for being a 15 year old author. That's an incredibly cool . But, I didn't like the book at all, and let me tell you why: I'm an avid fantasy fan. David Eddings and Anne McCaffery are among my BIG FAVORITES. I'm guessing that Chris liked them as much as I did, because several of the names in the novel, a great deal of the plot, and some of the characters were blatantly based off of Edding's series The Belgariad . I know because I read his series until the covers fell off of the books. I as well fell in love with Garion, Polgara, Belgarath, Silk, and the rest of the crew.

However, it's unfair to use another author's ideas as your own and then promote the book as "origional."

Garion also started his life as a peasant. His grandfather, Belgarath was also a grumpy story teller. Garion's true identity was hidden from him his young life, as was Eragon's. Garion's hand was also marked because his line was linked with that of the Orb, much as Eragon's was marked from touching a young Saphira. Also, the name "Brand" was used in Eddings' series as the Riven Warder. It was also used in our young author's novel. I'm sure that there are more names and more similarities, but these were blaring and really bothered me. As for Anne McCaffery, her dragonets of P.E.R.N. choose their riders at hatching. Don't the eggs choose their "riders" in Eragon?

So, the story is not origional. I wanted to call attention to this. Yes, he is 15, but is the book really great? No. It's not. Only a 15 year old would have gotten away with such blaring use of other author's ideas.

I agree that it's a shame about Paolini. His parents have obviously pushed him into publishing before he knew how to really write well just so they can take advantage of the money. I mean, the book's not absolutely horrible, just not original. It'll probably make a good movie, since overdone plots and things turn out to be good movies all the time, like cheesie action flicks and romantic comedies. Paolini's lack of writing ability can be covered up in a movie. I'm sure it'll be a great hit. Maybe we should just wait for the movies instead of reading the book. That way, we won't waste more than two hours.

As I read the reviews I can't help noticing that some "over zealous" fans seem to call people names or say negative responses to someone else's opinion. Might I remind people that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion whether they liked Eragon or not. I personally didn't like it, though it does show some promise. A great undertaking by someone so young. I am in agreement with a few posts that have pointed out the book is very similiar to other fantasy novels I have read. I believe that the author does have a chance to grow. Perhaps he would do wise to take a few writing classes and strive for some originality. However, since this post is about the book Eragon and not its author I feel I have the right to say that based on what I have read along this genre I rate this book a 1 or a 2. It is my guess that the 5's are coming from readers in a certain age group that may not have had the pleasure of reading such great works of literature written by Alexandre Dumas, or Edgar Allan Poe, or even James Joyce. Some of the best fantasy I have read has been written by Andrew J. Offut. He has a way of using words to capture the mood of the story without sounding like a hack.

I have to confess, I have only read the first three pages titled "Prologue" that were available on line. I had high hopes in this novel as there seems to be much ado in the Media recently regarding its young author - nineteen - Wow! As it turned out it seems "Much Ado About Nothing" - that is, nothing I haven't read in other sci-fi/fantasy reads. The prologue was so poorly written I wondered if the author had taken the time to proof-read aloud his work. Often reading aloud the written work can sound entirely different than the author's intent when writing from imagination, in this case the words and sentence structure seem too grammar-school - ish. There is also a lacking of dialogue that might have helped with the story's pacing during the long-winded action sequences. Still, it's not a bad piece of work for such a young author; but that being said, I am reluctant to score it as "two thumbs-up" when I have read better, far more deserving first time stories that should have made it to print before this one.
Cheers!
Lender

Anyone who enjoys this book has obviously not read any literature that has a point. His copying is evident and his lack of creative ideas is appalling! Paolini should not have been allowed to publish the piece of junk. Paolini further showed his inexperience by not being able to figure out how many books were in the series. I have read the first three books and will probably read the fourth just to make sure that all of my predictions were correct.

Let's skip the praise that he wrote it at such a young age, blah blah blah. Amelia Atwater-Rhodes wrote absolutely stunning things at thirteen. Paolini is an idiot. Well, actually, he's an idiot with parents who have connections in the publishing industry. Thus, he was able to pluck what he liked best from Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and numerous (better!) storylines and mash them all together in a book his parents said was wonderful. Honestly, his parents are even worse. They didn't have the backbone to say "Son, I know you worked hard on this... but it's awful. I'm sorry; I don't want to burn anyone's eyes out, so it'll have to stay in your desk drawer." Would that really be so hard? Now we have to deal with an absolutely trash movie and numerous fans (most of whom couldn't tell Shakespeare from their ***) defending this piece of garbage.

You know the reason it did so well? It has dragons. That makes for a great image on your advertising promos, and little children are attracted to anything scaly with wings. If Eragon had, say, giant slugs who could fly instead... the blindfold would be gone and everyone would be able to see why Eragon is such trash.

Boring. Bad prose, no characterization, recycled plot. Its fame comes from the author's supposed age, though people tend to forget he was older than most people assume and had a professional editor. That, and the fact the book was marketed at a bunch of illiterate kids who couldn't tell Charles Dickens from their arse. What are you to expect from a kid whose social interactions are limited to his family, the books he's read, and the movies he watches with his family?

Skip it. There are much better books written by experienced adults who don't get movies and games. But they don't have the fame because they care enough about their works they don't indulge in overused plots and flat characters. And they aren't "fifteen" for the past eight years.